Online learning doc - UCU

On-line LearningThe Lecturer Experience

A survey report

NATFHE-The University & College Lecturers’ Union is the largest tradeunion and professional association for lecturers, trainers, researchers andmanagers working in further and higher education throughout England,Wales and Northern Ireland. Of our 67,000 members 19,000 work inuniversities (mainly the post-92 universities) and colleges of highereducation while 42,000 are employed in further, adult, land-based and prisoneducation. Our membership also includes educators in the private sectorand students training to teach in further and higher education.

Please address any comments on this report to Liz Allen.Email: [email protected]

Join NATFHE freephone 0800 169 8 169

Published by NATFHE, 27 Britannia Street, London WC1X 9JP.www.natfhe.org.uk

(c) NATFHE, July 2003

ContentsIntroduction 3

Key issues raised in the survey 3

Who responded? 4

Use of on-line learning: how much, what and why? 5

How much were people using on-line learning? 5

What were they doing? 6

Why did some not get involved? 8

Facilities 9

Training and technical support 11

Disability issues 14

Pedagogic issues 15

The impact on workload 17

Development of materials 18

Additionality 19

Individual contact with students 20

Student expectations 20

Assessment 21

Early stages 21

Maintaining systems 21

Working in teams 21

Balance 22

Priorities 22

The workload pros and cons overall 22

The management and recognition of workload 23

General comments 25

The threat to jobs 25

Ownership and copyright 26

Institutional strategies 26

A negotiating agenda 27

1

On-line LearningThe Lecturer ExperienceA survey report

On-line Learning.The Lecturer Experience.A survey report

3


NATFHE on-line learning survey report

IntroductionThe use of ICT in learning and teaching and of various forms of on-linelearning has become a significant fact of life in further and higher education.There has been a plethora of material about the various technologies,platforms and teaching software, and about the organisational and pedagogicmerits and demerits of their use. However, less attention has been paid tothe degree of take-up amongst lecturers, their experiences and their views.

NATFHE set out to ask FE and HE lecturers about their experiences ofonline learning, and in particular about the impact on their working life, forinstance in terms of balance of work, overall workload, and access totraining. We wanted to reach those who are not particularly involved(indeed including those who are positively hostile) as well as those who areenthusiasts and experts, so we allowed for a fairly low level in terms of ITusage and employed a fairly loose definition of “on-line learning”, thatincluded those who were perhaps just posting reading lists and lecture noteson institutional intranets.

Our focus was on what is often called “blended learning” rather than “distancelearning” provision where lecturers and students are completely geared up toa distance/IT approach. Although our respondents included those involvedwith distance learning, the majority were using varying degrees of blendedlearning in an environment that also used face-to-face contact.

Key issues raised in the survey❍ There is a lack of consultation with staff over effective forms of

support and training for online learning;

❍ There is patchy practice in relation to support for staff with disabilities,and training on IT and disability issues for other staff - although staffare keen for training in this area;

❍ Staff in FE are far less likely than those in HE to have sole access to a computer;

❍ Many staff are in the development stages of using on-line learning andare still working out how to deal with problems;

❍ Student expectations need to be managed, and boundaries set in adifferent way - managerial support and a collective approach couldsupport individual lecturers with this;

❍ Some lecturers had found that they could deal with studentscollectively and systematically, once student expectations had beeneffectively managed;

4


❍ The greater diversity of delivery methods and resources catered for agreater diversity of students - especially those who found attendancedifficult, such as part-time students;

❍ The desire to improve the student experience may lead in some casesto the lecturer doing more and more work for the student (forinstance by sourcing and up-loading and updating more and morematerials and resources)- not necessarily to the student’s advantage inthe long run

❍ Some institutions offer good support in terms of facilities for home use,but it is not clear if these are generally available facilities or offered asindividual deals;

❍ It is questionable how much collective discussion there is to review theuse of various systems and their usefulness;

❍ There isn’t always an institutional strategy (or one evident tolecturers) on the use of online learning;

❍ There appears to be considerable unplanned development of onlinelearning leading to staff working in isolation, reinventing the wheel, andpotentially not using IT to best effect;

❍ Working in isolation can result in an onerous development andmaintenance workload, in relation to tasks that could be shared;

❍ ICT use and on-line learning is an important element in wideningparticipation and making learning available to part-time, mature andemployed students - although it can equally exclude students if its useis not carefully thought through for the specific students concerned

❍ Asynchronous learning is time-consuming and expensive - howeverdesirable;

❍ Many lecturers see ICT and online learning as being about savingmoney and reducing jobs.

Who responded?532 individuals completed questionnaires sent out in January 2003. Ofthese, just over a quarter (130) were from a random sample of 500NATFHE members in further education colleges and higher educationinstitutions -a 25% response rate. The others were those who respondedto internal and external publicity and completed the survey on-line viaNATFHE’s website. Although the survey publicity encouraged people whodid little or no on-line learning to respond as well, the on-line responses arelikely to have come disproportionately from those involved in onlinelearning. The “random sample” respondents who had been written to byNATFHE were less likely than the “self-generated” respondents to beengaged in using forms of online learning.

SectorThe majority of respondents were from post-92 universities and HEcolleges, with 16.5% from FECs and a small number from pre-92 universities,adult and community education and private training providers. Overall 75%of responses came from higher education. There were more FE collegeemployees (28.5%) amongst the random sample responses. 85% were fulltime, and only 4.3% were hourly paid (as opposed to fractional part-time.)

The FE respondents were slightly younger, more likely to be female andmore likely to be part-time.

Gender and disabilityThere was a fairly even gender split - 55 % male response. 6.4% ofrespondents considered themselves to have a disability.

The women who responded were also more likely to be from FE, to beyounger and to be part-time.

Age20% were aged 40, or younger, and 73% between 40 and 60. The age profileof the random sample responses was older than those responding on-line.This may in part reflect the age profile of NATFHE members, although only18% of on-line respondents were not members.

NATFHE membership14% were not NATFHE members

Subject areaSubject spread was very wide - and although people teaching in IT andcomputing were the biggest single group they only formed 17.7% of thetotal. The other most common subject areas were Humanities (10%), SocialSciences (10.2%), Business and Management (13.7%), Health (10.7%) andScience and Engineering (12%). (Other areas listed were Art & Architecture;Education; Law; Mathematics; Leisure and Tourism, Social Work and“Other”). The description of the subject areas in the questionnaire reflectedhigher education more strongly than further education, and so the FErespondents covered a wider range of “other” subjects, including ESOL andEFL. As one would expect, the use of forms of on-line learning wassignificantly higher for those teaching in IT.

Use of on-line learning: how much, what and why

How much were people using on-line learning?Overall, 87% of respondents were using some form of on-line learning withtheir students. A question asked whether people had put various materialson-line for students - 72% ticked at least one option and 28% did notrespond. The most common materials put on-line were reading lists andlecture notes and “other materials authored by the lecturer” (56%).

5


6


However, the use of interactive forms of on-line learning was less common,although 39.5% of those responding had given on-line student feedback, 33%used e-mail discussion groups, 29% had used interactive teaching materialsand 24% on-line assessment.

There were no differences between men and women in terms of extent ofuse of online learning. Gender differences surfaced in answer to questionsabout why people were not using online learning, and in attitudes to trainingand development. (See later).

Overall, the FE respondents were less likely than those from HE to be usingforms of online learning, (76% as opposed to 90%). The random samplerespondents were slightly less likely to have engaged in the range of on-linelearning activities asked about, and only 70% were using some form of on-line learning. This can in part be accounted for by the fact that these peoplewere also more likely to come from FE. However those who were notinvolved were not any more hostile than the self-generated respondents,and were equally likely to say that it was because they didn’t know enoughabout it and/ or hadn’t received training (see below).

Only a minority of respondents had put material on-line at the instigation ofa manager - 83% said that it was initiated by themselves. However a numberof comments referred to being “pushed” or “encouraged” in the directionof forms of on-line learning, rather than directly instructed.

What were they doing?In addition to lecture notes, seminar topics and reading lists (all of whichwere more likely to be placed online by HE respondents) respondentsauthored a range of their own materials and placed them online (56%) and18% of respondents also customised other software using their ownmaterials. 60% of respondents identified forms of interactive teaching andlearning support that they used with students online - details of which aregiven below.

28% of respondents had taught using “off the shelf” materials - a figure thatwas roughly comparable to those using interactive teaching materials (29%)and on-line assessment (24%), and 21% had taught online using colleagues’materials. However only 13% said that they had actually been asked to deliveronline materials that had not been developed by themselves.

The picture was rather different between the two sectors - FE lecturerswere less likely to put materials such as lecture notes and seminar topicsonline, which probably reflects different forms of teaching and coursestructure more than anything else. However, although they were as likely asHE lecturers to use interactive materials they were significantly more likelyto do so using “off the shelf” materials (45% as opposed to 25%).Incidentally this is not to be explained in terms of the numbers of ITlecturers, who appeared in the same proportions in FE and HE.

7


The respondents were particularly unlikely to have used interactive formsof teaching or to have authored their own materials - and this was inrelation to the overall FE respondents as well as the on-line respondents,suggesting that they were generally less likely to be IT users and that thiswas not just a product of working in a less IT-active environment.

Activities specified included:❍ Discussion boards

❍ “Screen-cam” mini lectures

❍ Conferencing

❍ WebCT

❍ Seminars on line

❍ Various forms of discussion and “chat” - often to “follow-up” on faceto face sessions

❍ Interviewing and counselling by e-mail

❍ Bulletin boards

❍ Information sharing while students were on placements

❍ Diagnostic tests pre-sessions - for instance numerical or linguistic

❍ Student-centred projects being used to teach other students

❍ Downloadable “demos” to support theory teaching

❍ FAQs

❍ Quizzes

❍ E-mail access and communication between students and lecturers

“All our materials for courses are now available to students via a VLE. Studentscan access materials, assessments, grades etc on-line from college or home.”

“The main materials I have developed have been topic-based websites whichstudents use as a learning resource, in conjunction with a set of specified learningtasks. These materials have been used in support of conventional lectures andseminars, rather than for distance learning.”

“Currently use Blackboard as a platform to deliver an inter-professional module to500 students. Blackboard is used as a medium for delivery and all discussiontakes place on the discussion board (asynchronous) and chatroom (synchronous).Feedback is provided by facilitators formatively. The summative assessment isonline, using an in-house designed package with a link from Blackboard.”

“The course is run in conjunction with a local Uni. They provide the learningmaterials, we monitor student inputs onto discussion boards and live discussion.Students submit work online but it is marked off-line.”

8


“We use First Class software to run seminars for all modules, to store documentsfor the programme, run a notice board and chatrooms.”

“Created a virtual learning environment to incorporate all these elements whichsupported and reinforced classroom work.”

Why did some not get involved?

The most common reasons cited for not using any form of on-line learning,were that they did not know enough about it and/or that they had notreceived any training. However there were some interesting differenceshere - those from HE were more likely than those from FE to say that theydidn’t want to teach online, or that it was not relevant to their kind of work,and those from FE were more likely to say that they didn’t know enoughabout it. Women were even more likely to say that their reason for notteaching online was that they didn’t know enough about it (65.5%, comparedto 39% of men) and given the fact that there were more female respondentsin FE, this may be a gender, rather than a sector, difference.

Women were also more likely than men to say that they hadn’t received anytraining, which was interesting given that in the section asking about trainingpeople had done women were, in fact, more likely to have been trained.

Of the “other” reasons given the most commonly cited were lack of time,and lack of resources and facilities. Also mentioned were a lack of supportand enthusiasm amongst colleagues, and managers, and the fact that thesystems in use at the institution were considered “user-unfriendly” (egWebCT). Some lecturers expressed concern that the provision of onlinelearning facilities would deter students from attending lectures - an issuethat came up in comments on other questions as well.

% of 68 respondents who had not indicated any use of OLL (themselves only 13% of total respondents)

You don’t want to 25% teach online

You don’t know enough 51.5%about it

You haven’t received 36.8%any training

It is not relevant to your 22.1%kind of work

Other colleagues 1.5%are opposed

Other 23.5%

Blank 5.9%

9


“Want to teach online and am currently developing an area but lack expertise ortechnical support to do this.”

“Developing a web-based package which will be used from next year. Resistancefrom managers because of resource implications.”

“I am concerned about time available. If I do this then what goes? Or is it an extra?”

“I have not been asked, no-one else in my department has developed suchmaterials - yet.”

“It is difficult to be timetabled onto the computers to start with. I’d love to do itif I knew more.”

“No time.”

“I’m sceptical about online teaching and don’t anticipate I would receive adequatetime and support.”

“Time”

“Limited student access to PCs”.

“Not yet had time to prep. materials.”

“I need to develop this area of work to be responsive to students’ diverse needs.”

Comments expressing outright hostility were relatively few, but did exist:

“I do not get paid enough to spend time doing this. It is not in my interests asonce everything is online the university does not need me any more.”

Facilities

% of total responses % of HE responses % of FE responses

Sole use of a PC 78.9 90.8 34.5

Shared use of a PC 18.6 9.0 60.9

Access to internet 87.8 89.1 90.8

Access to intranet 74.4 76.1 82.8

Laptop for home use 20.7 18.9 27.6

Other home use facilities 11.5 11.4 10.3

Blank 2.3 1.0 0

10


The “other” home-use facilities cited were, most commonly,:❍ Intranet/work e-mail access

❍ Licensed software use on home PC

❍ Lap-top borrowing and PC loans

❍ Virus protection

❍ Other bits of hardware such as printers and scanners

The main difference between groups in relation to facilities was in provisionof a PC solely for the individual’s use, rather than on a shared basis, wherethose working in HE were significantly more likely to have this (90.8%) thanthose in FE (34.5%). Despite this, the FE respondents were equally likely tohave access to the internet and intranet, and more likely to be given the useof laptops for home use.

Whether or not facilities and equipment were up-to-date, or compatiblebetween staff and students, was another matter:

“We have the crazy situation where the students’ computers were upgraded andthe staff ones were not, so we are unable to read e-mailed work and as most of ushave recent software at home we have to remember to save as an old-type file, orwe can’t read at work. How can we work effectively where we are not supported.”

A number of respondents highlighted the fact that successful on-line learningdepended on the students also having effective facilities and access to them -which was not always the case.

“Limited student access to PCs”

“The students do not have unlimited access to the internet.”

“One issue you have not highlighted is the adequacy of IT provision. I have a labof computers which I am supposed to teach with that DO NOT work for thepurposes needed (and have not for the last 5 years!). However the Institute I workat continues to impose the same software setup which prevents their use. ComeQAA time and in reports to external examiners one has to pretend to use thecomputers in teaching!”

“Although we have technical support and encouragement to use “blackboard” mostof our computers are too old to cope efficiently - everything takes hours to load etcetc - and I just can’t hack it...”

“We have on many occasions requested the use of electronic NVQ111 portfoliosfor our electrical students. However, despite repeated promises from managementno system has yet been implemented. It is my experience in ... that managers aretechnophobes living in the past ... we don’t have the tools to do the job.”

11


“Our computer infrastructure is not big/robust enough to take the traffic itcurrently uses, never mind any more.”

Training & technical supportRespondents were asked twice about technical support - once in the formof a general question “Do you get technical support?” 91% replied “yes” tothis. However when asked whether they had received technical support forspecific activities - putting materials online, teaching online, delivering otherinter-active learning and teaching activities online - only 53.9% said “yes”.The break down between the sectors, genders and the random sample/selfselect respondents was remarkably consistent here. From the comments atvarious stages in the questionnaire it would appear that the reason for thisdiscrepancy is partly that some people may not avail themselves of technicalsupport because they don’t need it, and partly that the right kind, or level oftechnical support is not available:

“Used First class discussion forum in a previous post .... Have failed to implementin this post partly because of a lack of technical support and partly because I needto work hard at facilitating this kind of activity ... it needs to be focused and facilitator/instructor needs to respond constructively to contributions toenergise discussion.”

“Technical support is always very limited and if key person is off sick it stops.”

“No training available. Minimal technical support: amounts to fixing the computerif it “won’t go”. Get most help from husband!”

In some cases there is a significant level of support:

“We employ 3 learning technicians to assist us in developing core teaching andtest materials.”

“You should look further into “technical support”. A simple yes/no distinctionconceals a wide range of situations. Over the years... the support I’ve received hasvaried dramatically, from having a dedicated web designed working on my materialsto (at present) no effective technical support at all.”

12


Training Over 70% of the training respondents had received was in-house, other thanfor computer modelling, software authoring and multimedia authoring.However very few had undergone these forms of training. In general thenumbers of respondents that had undergone formal training with their HEor FE employer were low:

A slight gender discrepancy shows up here. Women show a small butconsistent tendency to have undergone more training - other than incomputer modelling where the actual numbers are very small. This holdsacross discrepancies in HE and FE. Their wish for further training varied -in some areas it was greater than men’s and in others less. Whenrespondents were asked why they hadn’t engaged in on-line learninghowever, women were more likely to say that it is because they hadn’treceived any training (40.6%, as against 33.3% of men).

The relatively low levels of training in relation to issues on students withdisabilities, and on-line learning, is surprising given recent legislation - andthis is the training topic that had the highest number of people saying theywould like training in this area.

Of the other forms of formal training people had received, or wanted, themost frequently mentioned were LeTTOL (learning to teach on-line) andthe European Computer Driving Licence.

[percentages] All Wld HE Wld FE Wld Men Wld Women Wld

like like like like like

Word - 32.7 9.2 32.3 8.0 33.3 13.8 28.7 8.7 39.1 9.8processing

Database 23.1 24.8 21.9 22.9 29.9 33.3 18.9 25.9 29.4 23.8

Spreadsheets 25 19.7 22.6 18.4 31.0 27.6 20.3 20.6 31.9 18.7

Internet/ 42.9 11.5 43.0 10.0 46.0 18.4 40.2 10.1 47.2 13.2e-mail

Desktop 10.9 28.2 8.7 29.1 16.1 26.4 9.1 27.6 13.6 28.9publishing

Computer 4.5 16.9 5.5 14.4 1.1 26.4 5.2 21.0 3.8 12.8modelling

Software 7.5 22.6 6.5 19.4 12.6 34.5 6.6 25.2 8.9 20.4authoring

Multimedia 12.4 33.1 12.7 32.6 12.6 36.8 11.9 37.8 13.6 28.1authoring

Video 10.0 28.4 9.5 27.6 13.8 36.8 9.1 28.0 11.5 30.2conferencing

VLE 36.5 36.7 38.3 35.6 31.0 42.5 33.2 39.2 42.1 34.9

Conversion 12.0 30.8 11.7 30.6 12.6 33.3 11.9 30.4 12.8 32.3standalone

Disability 20.1 38.9 19.9 39.1 23.0 37.9 16.1 38.1 26.0 40.9issues

There were a large number of comments about training, many respondentsmaking the point that training was available at their institution but that theyalready had the skills they needed - in a number of cases acquired inindustry. Many respondents said that they had taught themselves - somebecause there was no other option.

“Those who work in this environment at the moment are appointed on the basisthat they have a high level of skill in all these areas. We are also self-motivatedand have always been self-taught. We were not coerced, we are leaders in this.”

“Don’t want the training because it is too basic, I prefer to teach myself.”

Other comments related to the difficulty in accessing appropriate training -and at times that are convenient for staff.

“Our University does provide training on all of the above but I don’t like attendingformal training sessions. What is useful is having an online of a telephonehelpdesk for all of the above issues.”

“...we seem to go in for courses rather than giving people manuals and support.”

“Some of this has been offered but I haven’t had time to do it”

“Training was available for all above if sought - time to utilise is the problem.”

“To be fair, I think our institution offers training on some of these issues but Ihaven’t yet been able to factor them in. It’s probably bad that they leave it toindividual choice rather than being more proactive and telling us how these thingswould enhance our teaching.”

“To be fair to the University, there are courses made available for computerworking. However a teaching commitment of close to 700 hours this academicyear does not allow me any time to partake of the opportunities. Furthermore thesessions are invariably on the day when I run a clinic associated with my lecturing.”

“The answer boxes do not enable me to give a picture of a situation where trainingis available, but not easily or conveniently. Content and delivery are also configuredin a way that comes out of a commercial ethos rather than an academic one, andthus fits the needs of admin staff rather than academics.”

“Training is offered on a first-come first-served basis DURING TEACHING HOURSONLY. Very few academic staff are prepared to dump mainstream teaching to goon the courses... requests have been made for “out of hours” training but so farthere has been no change in policy”

“I would welcome some self-help group/experience sharing.”

The obvious question, on reading the many comments made about training,is whether institutions are actively consulting with staff about the kinds of

13


training they would find helpful, and the means and times of delivery. Whilstthese issues may not traditionally have been seen as part of the unionnegotiating agenda, they are in fact important components of the overallquality of work experience and conditions of service. Certainly some of thecomments under the section on workload highlighted the fact that it waspoor or undeveloped skills that made the development and preparation ofmaterials so time consuming.

Disability issues6.5% of questionnaire respondents considered themselves to have adisability. The majority (62%) of these people had not had disability-relatedassistance in relation to their own use of IT, or to facilitate their use of it foron-line learning (73.5%). However almost a third of those with a disabilitymade it clear in their comments that they felt no specific disability-relatedassistance was required for them, or that they had not asked for it.

Of other comments a number pointed out that special IT equipment mightbe difficult to move from place to place and therefore difficult to utilise inteaching where was is not widely available:

“Have discussed with HoD and left to source equipment. Use own wrist rest andmouse mat in 1 location. Moving from buildings makes it impossible to haveresources readily available - no fixed PC usage.”

In other instances specific modifications for staff and students were cited:

“Modifications for wheelchair users, fitters, large keyboards, Braille converters.”

“Special chair with extended arm supports and multiple adjustments.”

“Disability affects dexterity, but I have developed my own “coping” strategies. VoiceRecognition software would help though.”

“Technical assistance provided on a needs basis. Access to appropriate softwareprovided. Additional resources purchased and made available when necessary.”

“Interactive whiteboards good for people with limited mobility.”

The other end of the spectrum was represented in a rather bleak statement:

“The faculty does not invite staff to declare whether they think they have a disability.”

And in relation to support for students with disabilities, which somerespondents commented on in this section, whilst the modifications citedabove were also available for students with disabilities, another respondentcommented that:

“I support over 1000 students and tend to cater for the majority, at present. We

14


are also having some difficulty identifying the specific needs of some students withdisabilities at an early enough stage to address them.”

The relatively low level of training undergone by all staff in supportingstudents with disabilities in on-line learning was perhaps the most surprisingelement of the responses - given legislative requirements. Only 20% had hadtraining in this area. A further 39% said they would like training on theseissues - the highest score for any kind of training identified. This was largelyconsistent across the various groups of respondents, although training inVLEs was also popular amongst male and FE respondents.

Pedagogic issuesThis survey focused on the implications of on-line learning for the lecturer-as-employee - in terms of workload, conditions of service, developmentopportunities, management involvement and so on - so it did not directlyaddress the numerous pedagogic issues. Inevitably many respondents didcomment on teaching issues in their responses to other questions, and inthe general comments at the end of the survey. The flavour of thesecomments is worth passing on, particularly given that the large majority ofrespondents were engaging in on-line learning (or not) at their owndiscretion, and thus individual attitudes to pedagogic issues will be asignificant driver on the extent of use. (83% of all respondents were placingmaterials on-line at their own initiative, and only 33% had been told by amanager to develop online teaching materials - activity that might in any casesit alongside self-initiated work.)

Some were very largely positive:

“I will be providing a more accessible learning experience and also a morestimulating one!”

where others remained to be convinced:

“At present there is little pedagogical support for on-line learning and teaching.This is a serious problem in proving its value and needs addressing.”

In general most respondents stressed that they saw the value of on-linelearning modes of delivery as being that they supported and complementedface-to-face and other “traditional” methods:

“Pedagogy is important. I prefer ‘blended learning’ where online materials supportthe classroom environment.”

“face to face/personal tutorials are most appropriate and relevant for 3D designteaching.”

“Posting materials online is an extra resource for students, it has not removed orreplaced any of the other ways material is supplied.”

15


This was also reflected in a number of comments indicating thatrespondents saw on-line learning as having a place in the “scheme of things”rather than being out-and-out enthusiasts:

“On-line learning has a place in the teaching of individuals - it does not suiteveryone but can be a complementary activity.”

A number of people felt that effective use of on-line learning enhanced thequality of face-to-face interactions - notwithstanding that this might initiallybe driven by resource considerations:

“I see students face-to-face less but the quality of interaction I have with the onesI do see is much higher and more focused on module content.”

“Online students require more support that f2f in my opinion ...”

“Use of on-line teaching materials has been necessary to overcome the problemof reduced contact time with students. Using “self-learning” materials means thatactual contact time can be spent more productively.”

Some of the reservations expressed were about whether on-line learning,and the use of on-line resources, was a way of making teaching and learningeasier, or more pre-digested, so that students might welcome some facetsbut actually learn less because of having to make less effort. It would beinteresting to know how this set of concerns meshes with issues to do withwidening participation, and the needs of a more diverse student body, andwhether some lecturers are effectively expressing reservations about theways in which student expectations and needs are changing:

“I think use of IT in learning and teaching has much to offer but also hasdangers. In particular it can (and does) encourage the tendency for students towant more and more “spoon feeding” of learning - notes to revise from, guidanceon literature, examples of assignments etc. This of course is ironic as IT is oftenclaimed to encourage more independent learning. It CAN do, but only if we resistthe temptation to think that what students want from us is always what theyreally need.”

“Wish you had asked more about the suitability of using on-line learning ... Thepressure to use on-line learning solutions because of the perceived cost benefitsand supposed claims about “improving quality of teaching.” The reality is morework, more stress and lower educational achievement by the spoon fed students.”

And these concerns were intensified where people felt that technology wasbeing used primarily for non-pedagogic reasons:

“My concern is that it is used as an “efficiency” tool rather than an enhancing tool.”

However other comments suggested that online learning does not have toinvolve “spoon feeding”

16


17


“The most powerful way to use the net is to get involved in problematising theirweb search practices and creating databases of materials that students cansearch in conjunction with internet searches and discussion papers etc. Thisempowers students in a way that used to be only apt for post grads, now itssuitable for level one.”

Respondents also expressed concerns about use or overuse oftechnological modes of delivery where inter-personal interactions wereseen as core to the course or subject area - with some doubts expressedabout the capacity of on-line learning to deliver real debate:

“The course we deliver is intended to be highly participatory. If too muchemphasis is placed on an on-line approach, then much of the learning experiencecould be hampered with loss of student input in relation to their own personalexperiences and/or the direction they are being given by their own organisations.”

“I am concerned about the pressure to use WEBCT as an alternative to contacttime as I teach on a professional course and consider professional socialisation avital part of the educational process.”

“Teaching in a humanities area, staff also see debate as central to the disciplineand are not convinced that on-line learning is the correct medium for that. Itseems that staff think that on-line learning may be more appropriate for “factual”subjects than discursive ones.”

The impact on workloadQuestions about the impact of on-line learning on workload were centralto the survey and generated a great deal of comment. People were askedhow on-line learning changed their workload. Did it:

Interestingly people were equally as likely to say that on-line learning eitherchanged the balance or left workload about the same, as they were to saythat it had increased.

When asked what percentage of time was spent developing and/ordelivering on-line learning the responses were:

Increase workload? 41.2%

Decrease workload? 2.7%

Change the balance? 24.7%

Leave it about the same? 16.5%

(blank) 14.9%

So only 11% of respondents were spending more than 25% of their timedeveloping and/or delivering forms of on-line learning. These relatively lowpercentages may also explain why many respondents did not feel that theirworkload had particularly increased, especially amongst the 45% who werespending less than 10% of their time on these issues.

The responses to the two questions above did not vary significantlyaccording to gender, to form of response (on-line or paper), or to sector -other than that FE respondents were more likely to leave these questionsblank. However questions about whether people had been asked to developmaterials as an individual or as part of a team did show up differences - withwomen more likely than men to be developing materials on a team basis,and FE lecturers significantly more likely to work on materials as individuals(58%, as opposed to 38% of HE respondents) and not as part of a team.When asked about the allocation of development time, and allocation ofcopyright, differences between FE and HE were also worth noting, especiallyin relation to copyright:

Where people felt their workload had been increased, or that its balancehad changed, large number of comments and explanations were offered:

Development of materialsMany, many comments made the point that it was the development of on-line materials that was time consuming but that delivery might then be lesstime-consuming, or simply different and requiring different skills:

“ ..materials take longer to develop and produce”

“Initial increase but once completed substantially reduced workload”

“Development time is greatly increased. Delivery requires skills updates and adifferent approach to teaching.”

18


All - yes HE - yes FE - yes

Get allocated development time 28.6% 25.4% 37.5%

Have discussion about copyright 17.7% 18.1% 8.3%

Secure any copyright 9.7% 11.6% 0.0%

Blank 44% 44.9% 54.2%

Less than 10% 44.9%

11-25% 20.9%

25-60% 8.3%

51-75% 2.1%

76-100% 0.6%

(blank) 23.3%

“Extra work involved in developing work”

In some cases it was questionable whether the work individuals wereundertaking was really best and most efficiently done by them :

“Extra two hours a week converting materials to HTML documents and uploadingthem onto the server.”

It appeared that this kind of work was better organised in some locations:

“Placing existing materials on a web page does not add significantly to myworkload. The “shell” is provided by technicians so it takes little time for me totransfer my materials.”

Others commented that developing and placing material on-line was insome ways a more public activity than simply giving them to specific groupsof students -and that this generated different expectations:

“Feel need to “over-prepare” work that will go online and therefore to a wider “audience”

And another commented that in general written communication (which byits nature all forms of on-line learning require) is more demanding and needsto be more precise than oral communication.

Some people stressed that whilst initial development was time consumingthey saw it as an investment they chose to make, not to save themselvestime in the future but because they wanted to explore optimum teachingand learning methods:

“Looking to deliver facilities that support different learning styles and differentstudent circumstances/expectations rather than as a timesaving exercise. At themoment designing resources and exploring/testing different ideas and possibilitiesis more time consuming that teaching without the facilities.”

“Additionality”In most cases it appears that on-line learning is not replacing other elementsof the lecturer’s work, it is adding to them. This is in part because it isrecognised that different students will have different needs and a wholly “on-line” or computer based approach will not be appropriate for all. Manyrespondents also felt that materials often ended up being duplicated. Thefollowing is a typical comment:

“I have to use the traditional methods and the on-line tends to be an addition nota replacement”

And a large number commented that the work involved in developingresources and systems for on-line learning is additional to all the otherthings that they already did.

19


20


Individual contact with studentsOpinions differed as to whether on-line delivery was reducing the numberof individualised queries that lecturers had to deal with or increasing them.This doubtless is a result of the kinds of methods and resources being used,as in some cases lecturers are posting responses to queries on group e-mails, bulletin boards etc, and not having to deal with them repeatedly, andin others they are responding by e-mail to individual queries. This alsoapplied to the question of whether or not the provision of on-line resourcesreduced the amount of individual demand:

“Less door knocking looking for missed lecture notes, personal queries recoursework, last minute photocopying...”

It may be that some of these issues reflect the ways in which individuallecturers relate to students and organise their time, and that changingtechnology is bringing the issue to the fore rather than being the cause ofit. It is unclear whether the respondent below accepts that student contactwill be “constant and diffuse” or is simply the victim of it:

“Contact with students is constant and diffuse rather than planned andconcentrated.”

Whilst the comment below suggests a more proactive approach to theproblem, it is perhaps the product of longer experience in this area.

“Working on a more standardised approach to responding to students discussion- ie answers to FAQs posted into each area.”

Student expectationsAnother key theme was that students’ expectations rise in line with on-linedelivery, and that in particular e-mail raises expectations in terms of speedand timing of response:

“Students expect more and more to be provided for them on-line”

“Usually e-mail encourages students to ask more questions and engage in moreprotracted discussions - you can’t stop them coming back with another questionor comment and they don’t see it as taking up your time.”

“Students believe you should be online 7 days a week and 24 hours a day. It isquite normal for students to e-mail you on a Sunday demanding to know why youhaven’t answered their e-mail or commented on their discussion forumcontribution posted late on a Saturday evening.”

However in more than one case people made it clear that this wassomething they expected to be able to address and control:

“Students...started sending extended chunks of writing by e-mail ... I learned tospell out my expectations which came to include a requirement that extended

21


chunks of writing must come hard copy. This stopped students sending ill-plannedfirst drafts as soon as they had finished writing them, and has led to morethoughtful work.”

AssessmentA number of respondents mentioned the impact of on-line assessmentmethods. For most this was an area where the technology had reduced work:

“Interactive on-line tests reduce the number of hours spent marking.”

“On-line test a little time consuming at first but there was no marking!”

But not in every case:

“Online marking makes comparisons more difficult and in some cases takes longer”

Early stagesMany commented that they were still in the early stages of using on-linelearning methods, and they were optimistic that the workload would proveto be front-loaded and their initial efforts would pay dividends. Whetherthis optimism is warranted is unknown, but certainly a variety of othercomments (quoted in other sections here) demonstrated that somelecturers had taken active steps to manage delivery and studentexpectations:

“At first I gave more time because on-line is easy to respond to and I wanted itto work ... Now I ‘control’ my online time to be in step with other teaching ...”

In other cases it was institution-wide introduction that was new, and theprocess of assessing impact was collective:

“University is piloting blackboard as yet it is unclear of workload impact.”

Maintaining systemsWhilst it was clear that the most time-consuming element was in thedevelopment of materials, the setting up of systems and familiarisation withthe technology/software - and that delivery might be more or less time-consuming depending on the nature of the activity and the lecturer’s ownapproach - the point was also made in a number of different ways that themaintenance of systems is itself time-consuming.

“Maintaining student e-mail lists take some considerable time.”

“Discussion groups can be very demanding if monitored by tutors.”

Working in teamsAn issue appearing to lie behind many comments and worth exploringfurther, was that many people appeared to be working in isolation,generating resources and working out their own ways of managing student

22


expectations, the extent to which they would duplicate material, and so on.The simple comment below was noteworthy in its unusualness:

“I did not need to prepare the material myself.”

In the comments on additional workload this was the kind of reference onemight get to team working:

“The current system is undertaken to ensure certain skills are developed bystudents and as such adds to the general workload as I am the only person in theteam who contributes to the materials.”

However in the section asking about ways in which additional workload wasrecognised (see below) there were more -and positive - references to teamsand other collective decision-making groups. This suggests that forworkload to be recognised and controlled there must be some element ofdiscussion, team-work and consensus about the best ways to manage.However the reality for many respondents seems to be that of the - often-enthusiastic- individual bashing along in isolation and working it out forhim/herself.

BalanceFor many there were advantages and disadvantages in terms of the overalldemand made by using on-line learning. The following quote is a goodexample of the “package” of workload change experienced in the shift toon-line delivery, with some elements being more time-consuming andothers less:

“More time has to be given to designing the delivery strategy to incorporate theuse of technology. For example, depending on the type of technology used moretime has to be spent in preparation for delivery ... Once implemented then furthertime has to be spent monitoring activity to evaluate the benefits (or otherwise) ofusing online learning - effective integration of the technology with face to face isan extremely important factor to success.Time is however then saved through lessefforts having to be put into provision of resources for students not attending. Also“tracking” facilities add greatly to the tutor’s ability to judge engagement of thestudent with the learning materials. Time also saved at revision times and in othergeneral, largely administrative activities.”

PrioritiesFinally - in commenting on their workloads a few respondents made it clearthat although they could see some potential benefits in using on-line learningit simply was not a priority for them compared to - for instance - moretraditional kinds of teaching, or engaging in research.

The workload pros and cons overallBefore going on to look at the ways in which some of the workload issueshere were being tackled - or not - it is worth summarising the main issuesthat surfaced:

❍ Work was additional rather than replacing activities alreadyundertaken

❍ Work generated by on-line learning is significantly “front loaded”

❍ Students had unrealistic expectations of lecturer-availability on-line

❍ Some problems are a result of staff working in isolation without teamor managerial support

❍ In some cases “on-line learning” appeared to be little more thanproviding students with more information and resources on-line whilecontinuing to teach them in the same ways - and the work of supplyingthe information was laborious without any other pedagogic or time-saving benefits

❍ A lack of technical support, and lack of adequate or appropriate ITfacilities

❍ Some students were resistant to using new methods, or did not havethe right resources and facilities

❍ Where on-line learning was more systematic in use some lecturers feltit was imposing an unwelcome uniformity on their teaching

❍ On-line delivery is more “public” and therefore more demanding

However where respondents were positive, the key features were:❍ The student experience was enhanced, they were doing their job

better and it was therefore more satisfying

❍ They could deal with students collectively and systematically, oncestudent expectations had been effectively managed

❍ The greater diversity of delivery methods and resources catered for agreater diversity of students - especially those who found attendancedifficult, such as part-time students

Management /recognition of workloadRespondents were asked whether the additional workload generated by theuse of on-line learning was recognised in the determination of their workload:

A couple of people commented that this was a loaded question. One mightassume that at least some of the “blanks” in this case were those who didnot consider that there was any additional workload. However thecomment below suggests an approach that makes sense whether work isadditional or simply different:

23


Is additional work All HE FErecognised?

Yes 12.2% 10.7% 18.4%

No 62.0% 66.2% 50.6%

(blank) 25.8% 23.1% 31.0%

“We need to have clear boundaries... I think this is a topic which should be carefullyaddressed so that staff are not left to flounder until they find their own level.”

The most common way in which the work generated by on-line learningwas recognised in the overall allocation of a lecturer’s work, was byallocating time for the development activities. This was particularly so forindividuals who were recognised as having a role in championing on-linelearning - for instance within their team or department. So in some casesthere was a designated ILT champion for each curriculum area, in anotheran individual had been seconded to this role as a Teaching Fellow, and inanother the individuals were given specific allocations - 2 days a week - todevelop materials and help colleagues.

In a more general sense there were mentions of there being timetableallocations for work on developing on-line learning resources and practice,but not for the ongoing work that then ensued in its delivery.

“Time allocated for development”

“Specific timetable allocation.”

“I have been paid additional hours to develop materials but not to deliver them.”

Time for development at least was regarded by some as paramount:

“I think it is important that if we are to develop new ways of teaching and learningthat makes education available to a wider range of people and makes it morefamily-friendly, then there must be time dedicated to do this. The only way this canhappen is if the development team have some seconded project hours, which willrelease them from some of their traditional workload.”

There was more mention in this section of collective discussion about theways in which people were working, and references to teams anddepartments making decisions about the workload involved in various on-line activities. However in some cases these decisions were regarded asinformal

“We find it difficult to assess the time - we agree it together in the team .... It is avery different form of teaching.”

In a small number of cases there appeared to be formal recognition of the“class contact” element of delivering on-line learning:

“Category 1 hours given where appropriate.”

“I am given 15 hours per group that I facilitate. Each group contains 7-8 studentsand I have 3 groups per module run.”

“I’m given one hour per student per module run.”

24


“Technically yes, but actually the allocation (which had to be fought for) isinsufficient, so I am using some of my own time, which I intend to recoup later.(Ho, ho).”

For at least one respondent an approach to workload recognition based oncontact hours would be mistaken:

“Lecturers should be given complete autonomy on how they deliver the moduleand allowances should not be based on contact hours.”

Other responses mentioned that the overall work was taken into accountthrough their appraisal system, or that it was part of a regular negotiationwith their line manager. For many others it was either:

“recognised as an important part of my duties”

or:

“part of my normal workload”

General commentsRespondents were invited to make general comments at the end of thesurvey. A number of these continued to pick up issues of training, pedagogyand workload, and have been reported elsewhere. A number of people usedthe opportunity to emphasise that they were completely self-taught andself-reliant in IT terms - and wondered how “less fortunate colleagues”coped.

The threat to jobsThis was the opportunity for those who felt that online learning is a threatto jobs and staff to make that point, and a number did:

“I see it as a threat to jobs.”

“The only way it saves money is if the institution chooses to regard on-line supportas non-contact time.This must be stamped on as a matter of urgency - in it is thedeath of the lecturing profession.”

“I am very wary of online learning as I think increased use of it would lead to:impairment of student learning; staff redundancies; increase in workload for tutors.”

It should be said that although fears about use of technology leading toredundancy are very real no examples of this kind were given, and indeedthe overall impression is of people incorporating on-line learning into theirwork (with great difficulty and under great pressure in some cases - but nomeans all) rather than a strategic managerial attempt to systematise overalldelivery in order to reduce lecturer staffing levels.

25


26


Ownership and copyrightThe issue of ownership of materials was also raised, with people expressingconcern that they are not clear about the copyright implications of onlinelearning, and fear losing ownership and control.

“I am concerned that there is a naive expectation of e-learning saving money butno appreciation of the amount of work involved, the technical and organisationalbarriers, problems of visual copyright (big problem in art and design).”

“No allowance given for large amount of time taken in producing materials. Reallyseen as cheap way of getting stuff for use by others.”

Institutional strategiesPerhaps the most interesting comments in this final section were those thatquestioned the overall strategic approach to the introduction of onlinelearning in their institutions. The claim that there was little evidence ofinstitutional strategy in this area, whilst hard to believe, is in fact very muchborne out but the tenor of responses throughout the survey - that manyindividuals were responding in a piecemeal way, driven by their ownenthusiasms and interests and sense of student expectations, withoutsystematic support or agreed parameters. Or that where they wereresponding to shared expectations these were not necessarily surfacing atthe institutional, but rather at the departmental or team level.

“Would be interesting to know about institutional strategies and planning for e-learning. Does anyone have one - we don’t.”

“My concern is that the institution lacks a clear strategy to support colleagues.Initially it depends on individual enthusiasm.”

“My institution has blown hot and cold over online learning, even closing down itseducational technology centre and making the staff redundant two years ago.Now, however, it is reintroducing some support as it tries, belatedly, to roll out anew VLE across the institution.”

“At my institution it appears that little consideration has been given as to whyanyone should be developing on-line learning material ... If a course is designed forconventional delivery it is not obvious what the point is of including on-line elements,and it is very unlikely that the development time can be justified or funded.”

“Our learning environment is over complex and unreliable, but management keepspromoting it for its branded image. Simple websites would be more flexible andreliable, but anarchic.”

27


A negotiating agendaThis survey was conducted to inform NATFHE’s policy-making in the area ofon-line learning.

Clearly in a number of areas, through consultation and negotiation,institutions together with staff representatives can develop policies andpractice that would support lecturers in their work, and students in theirlearning, identify problems and avoid repetition in development work.

NATFHE has already produced advice on the negotiating and employmentimplications of internet and e-mail use for employees generally. The findingsof this survey will be used in consultation with members and representativesto develop advice on negotiation in relation to on-line learning. Not onlydo representatives need to open discussions about the day-to-day workloadimplications of working with students via ICT and on-line, but also abouttraining, support and staff development. And even more importantly staffrepresentatives need to participate in the larger discussions about the waysin which institutional on-line strategies develop, and the pedagogic,resources and conditions of service implications flowing from them.

The series of questions below flows from the findings of the survey, and isintended to inform the debate:

Training and staff development❍ What kind of IT training do staff want and need?

❍ How do institutions currently assess need, and how might NATFHEinfluence the process?

❍ What forms of technical (and other) support are needed?

❍ What needs to be done to ensure all groups of staff are included intraining and development, including staff with disabilities and hourly-paidpart-time staff?

❍ What are the obstacles to training and development take-up?

❍ What IT facilities might NATFHE negotiate for staff for both in-houseand off-site use?

Institutional IT strategies❍ Is NATFHE currently involved in discussions about institutional IT

strategies?

❍ In what ways are lecturers currently involved in these discussions?

❍ What are the elements lecturers would like to be consulted about: forinstance, choice of platform, VLEs, use of software and deliverypackages, overall pedagogic strategy?

❍ What key inputs might NATFHE branches make - for instance, arethere significant issues associated with particular software? Significantobstacles to greater staff involvement?

❍ How do institutional strategies on learning and teaching, wideningparticipation, disability, race and other equalities work link up with theIT strategy?

❍ What are the process issues for getting involved in this debate?

Assessing and recognising workload❍ Is “student contact” a useful way of recognising workload generated by

on-line learning?

❍ How might the development element of on-line learning and teachingbe recognised?

❍ How can student expectations be managed- for instance throughagreed parameters on e-mail and discussion group use, availability ofresources, and interactive assessment?

❍ How can work be shared - for instance through more of a teamapproach and through appropriate technical support?

❍ What arrangements might lecturers negotiate in terms of ownershipand IPR?

❍ Are there specific issues for staff working part-time, for instance inrelation to time spent developing on-line learning resources and systems?

28


Online learning doc - UCU

Documents

Transcript of Online learning doc - UCU